VOTE: Government Accountability Office Report Used By Freepress: 04 Election Stolen

Originally posted by GradyPhilpottThis just more whining by sore losers

GAO are sore loosers?

The problem with them not finding any evidence is that the machine-system was so wide open that tampering could be done without leaving evidence. If there was tampering, everything would look exactly like it is, in this case.

Of course, if there wasn't tampering, everything'd look exactly like it is.

Just a little point of reference...

in the 2000 election, gore got 14,000 NEGATIVE votes in a district....

for those that dont know... that is impossible with an accurate and honest election system.

for anyone to say that an election couldn't be stolen, just isn't looking at verifiable history...

Originally posted by Muaddib
where we can corroborate this story, it is not my fault.

I would really like to know exactly how I can be considered arrogant for not believing the 2004 elections were "stolen" due to "possibilities."

I wasn't saying you are arrogant because you don't believe the 2004 elections were stolen I was saying you are arrogant because it seems you think that you are always right. You say you aren't so I'll take your word at it but I am still not sure you believe it when you say you aren't LOL LOL LOL

Originally posted by grover
You know I could really care less one way or the other whether I win this arguement or not.

I am not here to win arguments, but to find the truth.

Originally posted by grover
I learned a long time ago that to be inflexible is to all but admit being brittle and fragile.

It is more inflexible not to admit that "possibilities" does not mean something did happen, than to jump to conclusion and believe something did happen because of possibilities. I am pretty sure that in every country we can find reports on every election where there were "possibilities" of all the elections being rigged.

Originally posted by grover

I am not so committed to the idea that Bush etal stole the last election that I have to "prove" my point though I do believe that there was collusion among state and the national Republican parties to to tip the vote where ever they could.

Yeah that is called campaigns, not rigging elections. Have there been groups from all sides that have tried to rig elections? yes there have been, but this is the exception and not the rule.

Do i think we need to make sure these possibilities are not used to rig elections? of course we do. But I keep seeing a group of people trying to use any excuse to claim that the 2004 elections, and even the one before that were rigged because they don't agree with the outcome. Quite a few of these people, some of them being members in these forums, have even gone so far to say that we should have other elections....

That is not going to happen, and it is not because of the elections being rigged, or because this is a dictatorship like some like to claim.

Originally posted by grover
Have the Democrats done this as well? Of course they have, the difference is that now with the technology we have, it can be cooridinated nationwide and there is no need to burn ballots in the Texas outback or have the deceased vote in Chiago. It is all moot now though because like it or not Bush is president. What all this is really about is a difference of opinion and nothing more.

Originally posted by grover
Dispite all the conservative whinning about liberal bias in the media, all the major outlets are in conservative pockets and you very rarely hear a truely liberal voice and the kid-gloves treatment Bush has recieved for most of his presidency vs. the go for the juglar attitude that prevailed during the Clinton years proves it.

First of all the whinning can be seen by people who keep claiming that the elctions were rigged because they don't want to accept the outcome.

Second, you hear more often than not the liberal side in the media and the Sheehan case proves it.

Third, democrats/liberals and others have been going for the jugular vein of president Bush and everyone he chooses from the beginning, and democrats and others have been expecting those president Bush chooses to anwser any and every question when in past nominationby democrats they didn't have to anwser some questions that now for some reason Republican candidates must anwser.

Originally posted by grover
What the difference of opinion is that some all but worship the ground Bush walks on and that he can do no wrong, or at the very least it seems like it and then there are those, and I am one of them, who feels that the Bush presidency will in the long run prove a disaster for this country, if it already hasn't.

Again, that's your biased opinion. I don't "worship the ground president Bush walks on," and I do not agree with everything president Bush has done. I do agree with most of his main points, but that doesn't mean I agree with everything.

Originally posted by grover

Does that make me "wrong"? No, no more than fervent support for Bush makes a person right. In the long run only time will prove who is correct and who is not. I am entitled to my opinion without being called a traitor or have my patriotism questioned...

Time does not always proves who is wrong and who is right grover.

I don't know about you, but because of the job I have now I have been able to meet and talk to people from all over the world, mainly the US, but also people from Iraq, Venezuela, Colombia, Peru, etc.

The people I have met in Montana, ND and WY for the most part they are all conservatives. Most people I have met on rigs are conservatives, liberals/Democrats out here are very, very few. The people I have met in Miami and Hialeah are for the most part also Republicans.

The point that I am trying to get to is that for the most part there are still a lot of people who are still Republicans and would vote for a Republican president because of his/her views and how he/she stands on certain issues. There is no need to "rig elections" and the past elections were not rigged so that president Bush would win, despite what some keep claiming.

The people in the US voted, now because there are those who do not agree with the present administration, you and some others want to claim it was all rigged. If anyone is whinning, it is certainly not me grover....

Originally posted by grover
Samuel Johnson's comment about "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundral" still rings true to this day.

He also had other comments such as, and I quote.

"Some claim a place in the list of patriots, by an acrimonious and unremitting opposition to the court. This mark is by no means infallible. Patriotism is not necessarily included in rebellion. A man may hate his king, yet not love his country."

And

"A man sometimes starts up a patriot, only by disseminating discontent, and propagating reports of secret influence, of dangerous counsels, of violated rights, and encroaching usurpation. This practice is no certain note of patriotism. To instigate the populace with rage beyond the provocation, is to suspend publick happiness, if not to destroy it. He is no lover of his country, that unnecessarily disturbs its peace. Few errours and few faults of government, can justify an appeal to the rabble; who ought not to judge of what they cannot understand, and whose opinions are not propagated by reason, but caught by contagion."

Excerpts taken from.
www.samueljohnson.com...

Originally posted by grover
I love my country, I support our men and women in uniform, after all I served my time as well, but I will be damned if I do so blindly.

And noone is telling you to do so, but quite a few of the reactions we have seen of some peace activists and a few others do not show support for our men and women in uniform.

Originally posted by grover
I am no my country right or wrong jingoist.

and why then is it that some like yourself want to immediately assume that "the elections were rigged for president Bush to win", because you "seem to think" that most Americans did not want president Bush in office?...

To claim that the past two elections were rigged, without any proof, is to claim that most Americans would not have voted for president Bush.

Now, am I a "right or wrong jingoist"? nope. I don't know exactly why you would make such a comment...

Originally posted by grover
It is my duty as a citizen to stand up and protest when I feel my country is doing something wrong and that is the rub, it is my concious that dictates whether I feel my country is in the wrong or not and that is the rub when I am called a fool or a traitor or anti-American when I express my misgivings, no other person has the right to gainsay my concious anymore than I do theirs.

Yes, you are in your right to say what you want to say, but you, among some other people, seem not to want to accept what most Americans thought was best for the country, and you don't seem to want to accept that we did vote according to what we thought was right.

Instead you, and others, want to keep claiming the elections were stolen, and that those Americans who think the president is right in his mains points are "brainwashed." Those are your opinions, and the "opinions" of some other Americans, but they are only "opinions" after all. Opinions are not always right grover.

Originally posted by grover
There is an old adage that expressse an attitude that is in great shortage today, and one we need more of..."I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. "

Well, I do agree with you in the above, to a certain degree. First I don't believe that we should defend the right for anyone to promote a political party or a group that will opress the people,which is happening but anyways.... The second problem with that last statement that you made is that there are people like you, who do not agree with the results from the last elections, or the one before that, and these people, including you, keep saying those elections were rigged. You can't seem to fanthom that most Americans disagree/d with you.



[edit on 31-10-2005 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by grover
.......................
I was saying you are arrogant because it seems you think that you are always right. You say you aren't so I'll take your word at it but I am still not sure you believe it when you say you aren't LOL LOL LOL

grover..... Let me get this straight..... You can't give any evidence, from neutral sources, to back up your argument and because I don't want to accept the biased and exagerated view from that link of commondreams you provided I am arrogant?......

You can't provide evidence to back your claim, so you resort to attacking those who do not accept hearsay or "possibilities" as evidence that the elections were rigged..... and you are talking about arrogance.....


[edit on 31-10-2005 by Muaddib]